brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:Change the way we assign rollback
Hello everyone, I've been putting this off for a while considering that someone is really not going to like this. However, I'd like to propose that we move rollback from something that requires a two-week voting period to something that can be requested like patroller. To put it bluntly, rollback isn't a big deal. It is just a pretty button that allows users to revert edits easier. It's not hard to see if a user is eligible for it or not; one just has to look at their contributions and see if they've reverted vandalism correctly before. Besides, patrollers actually have more abilities now anyways :P Anyways, I'd also like one of two things to happen; either allow admins to add/remove rollback as well, or move the ability to add/remove patroller to bureaucrats. Really, neither rights should be a big deal, and we shouldn't have such a rigorous process for assigning a single user right. Yes, it can be abused, but so can everything else. Please discuss. Ajraddatz 17:45, January 19, 2011 (UTC) :This sounds good. I found it kinda silly to have the voting. Also if it's abused it can be removed easily and the rollbacking fixed 17:53, January 19, 2011 (UTC) I totally agree. Rollback is simply one tool. There is no need for the nominations, as they just add time to the process. 17:59, January 19, 2011 (UTC) :Per Boba. 18:34, January 19, 2011 (UTC) I agree. There shouldn't be a need for someone to be voted in to be a Rollback. 20:50, January 19, 2011 (UTC) :I guess so (surprise Ajr! :P). Besides, I find "undo" more useful than rollback a lot of the time. So, as long as the minimum requirements stay the same for rollback, and they're followed when assigning the rights, I'm ok with it. 21:41, January 19, 2011 (UTC) ::What if we change the requirements to those of patroller, but with obvious a bit of countervandalism experience? Ajraddatz 01:30, January 21, 2011 (UTC) :::I think the requirements of a Rollback should remain the same for now. 21:23, January 24, 2011 (UTC) :::I agree with SKP4472, 500 edits isn't really a lot if you edit consistently. 21:50, January 24, 2011 (UTC) ::::This should be more about experience in reverting vandalism than experience editing... Ajraddatz 22:39, January 24, 2011 (UTC) :::::True. If someone has evidence of some counter-vanadlism work, then this should contribute to as to why this user would make good use of the rights. I think we should also express that the minimal length of days and edits needed to be a Rollback, doesn't gurantee or mean that you will get them purely for that reason as that would be pointless. 17:01, January 25, 2011 (UTC) ::::::...You are still completely missing the point. Rollback is not partly about countervandalism, it is 100% a countervandalism tool. Therefor, it should be assigned to those who have displayed a proficiency in that area - it should have nothing to do with content improvement or any other edits. This is not some reward for good work; it is a tool for fighting vandalism. Ajraddatz 17:14, January 25, 2011 (UTC) :::::::I totally agree with Ajraddatz. 18:15, January 25, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::I think this would be best, but I don't like the immediate jump to change. It could work though. :) -Nerfblasterpro: [[special:contributions/Nerfblasterpro|'Can you believe it's only been a year?']] 19:51, January 25, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::I agree with Ajraddatz. 16:50, January 26, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::: Fair enough, I agree too, however I think there should still be some minimum requirements- for example giving rollback to someone who's made 10 edits and has only spent a day on the wiki doesn't really make sense to me (exaggerated example, but you get the point). 10:41, January 28, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::::How about 100 edits? I don't think that anything less than that could show a user's countervandalism experience well, as well as gauge how they will act with access to extra rights. Ajraddatz 22:19, January 30, 2011 (UTC) :::I totally agree with BobaFett2 who agreed with Ajr :-) . Awesome3000 01:06, January 31, 2011 (UTC) ::::I prefer 250 edits, be autoconfirmed and emailconfirmed. 01:08, January 31, 2011 (UTC) :::::Actually, per IRC conversation it would be good to have emailconfirmed for all extra rights. Would everyone be ok with 200 edits, autoconfirmed, emailconfirmed and a history of countervandalism? Ajraddatz 01:10, January 31, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Actually emailconfirmed makes sense as a-sort-of accountably. Awesome3000 01:14, January 31, 2011 (UTC) :::::250 sounds good to me, as rollback seems to be around the same as amount of right as patroller, however I don't really see a point to emailconfirmed- honestly if I ever had to be emailconfirmed, I'd make an address, get the email sent there, and never use it again. 03:35, January 31, 2011 (UTC) :::Why emailconfirmed? ---It's a Kind of Madness--- Kingcjc 16:19, January 31, 2011 (UTC) ::::A measure of accountability - so users can be contacted privately. Anyways, I guess we don't need that. Ajraddatz 16:27, January 31, 2011 (UTC) ::::I think we should have a voting now. 20:02, January 31, 2011 (UTC) Voting stuff The proposal is that the ability to add and remove rollback from users be moved to the sysop group, and that it be assigned by an administrator without community vote. To become a rollbacker a user must have 250 edits and be autoconfirmed. Yes #Ajraddatz 20:20, January 31, 2011 (UTC) #---It's a Kind of Madness--- Kingcjc 20:33, January 31, 2011 (UTC) # 20:38, January 31, 2011 (UTC) # 22:22, January 31, 2011 (UTC) # 18:48, February 9, 2011 (UTC) # --Cligra "I predicted you'd look at me like i am insane and lo, it has now come to pass!" 18:50, February 9, 2011 (UTC) No # Other *Alright, I'll contact Wikia and see if they'll implement this... Ajraddatz 14:40, February 8, 2011 (UTC)